1 The State of Andhra Pradesh in May, 2005 brought to the notice of the Central Government that Govt. of Maharashtra is constructing Babhli barrage in the reservoir submergence area of Sriram Sagar Project which is in violation of the GWDT award. In this regard, Member, Central Water Commission (CWC) held two meetings with officers of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in 2005. Besides, a meeting was held between the officers of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashstra in 2005. Another interstate meeting was taken by Union Minister of Water Resources with the Chief Ministers of concerned States on 4.4.2006 in which following decisions were taken:-
(i) A Technical Committee headed Chairman or by a senior officer of Central Water Commission and consisting of representatives of the States shall go into the details of various issues involved in Babhli Barrage project. The Technical Committee shall submit a report as early as possible but not later than 20th May, 2006
(ii) Till the Technical Committee submits its report, the status quo in respect of activities of the Babhli barrage project shall be maintained and further construction work will not be done by the State of Maharashtra.
2 Two meetings of the Technical Committee were held. The Technical Committee however, could not submit the report due to non-submission of detailed proposals by Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in respect of suggestions made during the meetings.
3. In July 2006, Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an Original Suit under Article 131 of Constitution against State of Maharashtra and Union of India and Others. In the Suit, the State of Andhra Pradesh prayed to the Court to grant a permanent injunction restraining State of Maharashtra from undertaking or proceeding with the construction Babhli Barrage within the reservoir water spread area of Sriram Sagar Project.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the matter on 26th April, 2007 and passed following interim order.
(i) Though the State of Maharashtra may go-ahead with the construction of the Babhli barrage, it shall not install the proposed 13 gates until further orders;
(ii) As the state of Maharashtra is permitted to proceed with the construction at its own risk, it will not claim any equity by reason of the construction being carried on by it.
Thus, the matter is subjudiced.